You are on page 1of 1

GUERZON V CA

FACTS
Petitioner executed with Basic Landoil Energy Corp (later acquired by Shell) a Service Station Lease and Dealers
Sales Contract. Respondent Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU) approved the latter contract and issued a Certificate
of Authority in Petitioners favor. After the contract, respondent Shell wrote Guerzon informing him that they are not
renewing the contract. A copy of said letter was furnished to BEU. Thereafter, BEU issued an order directing
petitioner to vacate the premises and to show cause in writing why no administrative order and/or criminal
proceedings shall be instituted for his violations.
Shell was able to secure the possession of the gas station. Guerzon then filed with the RTC a complaint but such was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to annuk the order of a quasi-judicial body of equivalent category as the RTC.
ISSUES
W/N the BEU has the authority to order petitioner to vacate the premises.
RULING
NO. The power of an administrative agency has only such powers as are expressly granted (here PD 1206) to it by
law and those that are necessarily implied in the exercise thereof. Said PD states that after notice and hearing, it can
impose and collect a fine and failure to pay the fine or to cease and discontinue the violation of the law (i.e. illegal
trading in petroleum products) shall be sufficient reason for suspension, closure or stoppage of operations.
Nowhere in the order is it stated that petitioner engaged inillegal trading or any other violation of BP 33. It merely
made a vague reference to violation of BEU laws, rules and regulation. The BEU (like its predecessor, the Oil
Industry Commission) has no power to decide contractual disputes between gasonline dealers and oil companies. It
cannot order petitioner to vacate the premises as this is an appropriate case in the vicil courts for unlawful detainer.
Assuming arguendo that it did had the authority; it still failed to comply with the requirement of notice and hearing.
NOTE: Nevertheless, petitioner could not require that possession be given to him as the contract was not renewed.

You might also like